1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination
2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship
Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

This diligence is accompanied by this PJ’s interpreter who is present in this Department, Mr Carlos Moura, as the deponent neither speaks nor reads the Portuguese language.

The deponent says that she has been living in Portugal for seven years on a part-time basis, in other words, she lives a few months of the year her home in Sargaçal and for the rest of the year lives in England, where she still works.

Last month of May, more precisely on the 4th of May 2007, the deponent was in Portugal, enjoying a holiday, when at about 07h00 she turned on the television and saw, on an English news channel (BBC or SKY NEWS), an appeal for British citizens on holiday in the Algarve to offer all possible support to a British couple that was on holiday in Praia da Luz and whose underage daughter had disappeared on the 3rd of May 2007.

As she works directly with situations of children at risk, and as she was very close to Praia da Luz, she went there with the intention of giving all possible support to the couple, and arrived there at about 09H30.

She clarifies that she did not leave immediately for Praia da Luz because she still had some personal things to do at home but left at around 09H00.

Initially, she could not locate the exact site where the family was spending their holidays. Upon seeing a police patrol car that passed close by her, she asked those policemen if they could show her the right location. She was thus accompanied by the patrol car to the apartment from where the child had disappeared and where the parents were staying.

On location there was a group of three people, two being males and one female.

She approached the group and identified herself.

Two members of that group, a male and a female, identified themselves as being the parents of the missing child, which is to say, the McCann couple.

The couple was visibly upset, and the mother was crying intensely.

The third person never identified itself, and upon the deponent’s insistence the couple replied that he was a close friend of the family.

She adds that this third person looked familiar to her.

Using the information that she had obtained on the news, she started by questioning the couple about how often they had checked on the children, obtaining the reply that people went to see them every hour.

As is normal and routine in her line of work, she questioned the couple whether Gerry was the biological father of the missing child, to which he replied that he was.

She clarifies that she asked this question because during the course of her 25 years of service working with children at risk, it is very normal that when a couple has a child and where the father or the mother is not a biological parent, the latter has a tendency to come and “fetch” his child.

After having obtained the verbal response from Gerry, the mother, Kate, asked what was going on as those questions should be asked by the police, which should be on location already and large numbers to find her daughter, who had been taken by a couple.

At this moment, the deponent noticed that the couple began to show doubts about her capacity and she immediately exhibited her official documents and credentials issued by the British government to calm them down.

Gerry took her documents and showed them to the third person, telling him that they were authentic and with a police certificate.

At this moment, the deponent wishes to clarify that, in England, anyone who works directly with children, whether a doctor, police officer or social worker, has to have a proper credential issued by the police and that this was one of the documents she showed to the McCanns.

Because she found it strange that Kate told her that her daughter had been taken by a couple, she tried to separate her from the other two individuals so that both could speak under more privacy, suggesting to Kate that they should go inside the apartment, which prompted for Kate to react aggressively and against such an idea and told her that they could speak on the street.

The deponent then asked her whether anyone from the Medical Centre had been with her as she was very agitated and needed some support, she answered no.

At this point, Kate told her that her daughter had disappeared 13 hours ago. It was about 10 in the morning.

Meanwhile a fourth individual came towards the group and identified himself as a journalist, and the deponent alerted the couple to the kind of statements they were about give and if it wouldn’t be better for them to remain silent.

At this moment, the third person, who was always near to the couple and the deponent, moved the couple away from her and the three of them talked in a hushed voice for some time.

After this, and leaving the couple behind him, he approached the deponent again and told her that the couple didn’t wish to speak any more with her, or with anyone else.

The deponent replied to him that if the McCann couple felt the need to talk to her later, she would be at their full disposal.

As she said earlier, this third person of the group is familiar to her, and thinks that she may have come across him in the course of her work, as a suspect or a witness.

Therefore, she describes him as tall man, height about 1,80 m, about 35 years old, of normal physical complexion, with short, dark hair, with a round face and with a scar on the left side of his face covering part of the eyebrow and cheek, using graduated glasses of small dimension with rectangular lenses, he spoke with a southern English accent and was wearing cream coloured trousers and a dark coloured polo shirt.

When asked whether she could identify him from a photograph or personally, the deponent said yes.

She adds that after having spoken to the McCann couple, she spoke to the resort manager, and after identifying herself, asked him whether there had been a break-in to enter the apartment where the child was, to which he replied no but that the door was open as were the shutters of one of the windows, which, according to Kate, should have been closed but were found open.

On the 13th of June of 2007, at this CID of Portimão, Yvonne Warren has presented herself before me, José Monteiro, Inspector, to perform a photographic recognition.

Because this was solicited from her, she described the suspect, and she was presented with photographs of the several individuals that composed the McCann couple’s holiday group.

From the visualisation of the photographs, it resulted that she recognised David Anthony Payne, an individual that is portrayed in several pictures, as being the one that she mentioned in her statements and whom she supposedly already knew from another circumstance.

The present file is going to be signed, after being duly translated by the interpreter.

The deponent comes to the process as a witness. Since she doesn’t speak Portuguese this diligence will be carried out in the presence, and with the intervention of Mrs Filipa Maria da Conceição Silva, a translator who will translate all questions and answers into English.

The deponent has given a previous statement to this police force regarding the facts in question. That diligence was carried out on the 13th of June 2007 and resulted in the witness statement that was read out to her during this diligence. The deponent confirms the complete integrity of that statement, and everything was fully reproduced for this file. The deponent was also shown the page attached to her previous statement, listing the places of work where she carried out her professional activities as Social Services Manager for Child Protection, having also confirmed that these were the cities where she carried out her professional functions.

She states that in truth, in the course of her contact with Madeleine’s parents, which she described in detail in her previous statements, Kate told her that the child had been taken by a couple. Given the development of that encounter, the details of which are contained in her previous statement, she did not have the opportunity to ask in depth about this question or about any other.

Concerning to the individual who was close to Madeleine’s parents when she met them, and who she later identified as David Payne, she reaffirms that the same individual seemed familiar to her, possibly because said individual intervened in a situation related to a professional activity of the deponent. She clarifies that neither on that occasion, nor now that time has passed, she was able to remember the exact place or the situation in which she may have come to know David Payne, but that she continues to think that the same individual is familiar to her but cannot state the particular situation. She has considered the possibility that that she may have come to know him professionally through work, possibly having been colleagues at work or having worked at the same place but she cannot be certain where she met him, as she does not remember exactly.

She mentions that about two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance, at a time when the police made an appeal for information concerning a man who has been spotted in the Luz area, carrying a child, and whose clothing was described, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. She found them aggressive at first, and their reaction after she showed Madeleine’s parents her credentials, also seemed strange to her. Afterwards she was informed that there were no signs of a break-in in the apartment. Knowing that they are doctors she found it absolutely abnormal that they left their children alone at home. Associating all of this with her professional experience, which tells her that in 99.99 % of missing children cases, the parents or other family members are involved, she felt it was her duty to inform the police of this. She did this anonymously because she did not want to be bothered by the media. Furthermore she states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (slipper or trainer type without a back strap). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

She further states that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers to see if David Payne is on that list.

You Might Also Like

22 comments:

Yes, it is fine that she suspected those people right immediately.I really hope she is helping in the investigations, all by herself.Not involving the British police in this case right now because they are forbidden to investigate what happened.I hope she has contact with the PJ and with Amaral.Justice has to be done.

Very interesting statement ! to say he was dressed the same as the alleged abductor is just a little spooky, but he didn't leave the table according to the tapas crew ? but then again they could well be telling more lies. I wonder if this will be investigated by the Alpha detectives or is it a little to close to home for their comfort ??

I believe the Paynes never left the table, not to attract the attention. Did you notice that on Gerry's documentary, Gerry is wearing light trousers and dark coat or T=shirt, when he crosses the street and talks to "Jez"?Maybe obliged, because of eventual description of Jez?Besides I think Gerry wanted to be sure everything went ok, he is the one who transported the body, imo.

Joana, somebody said here that Amaral was on TVI yesterday afternoon.Can you find this video?

1)It shows you how the parents were not being open right from the start. This raises the question of why? significant because if your eldest 3yr old child went missing you clutch at anything and everything not push assistance away. Especially so when the person giving help is a skilled professional in the area.

2) It implies that one of their friends David Payne could be on a child offenders list in the UK and that is not hard to find out and investigate accordingly. If he was on such a list what was it for, 13 yr olds or 3 yr olds etc etc. That is info the Portugese should certainly press to get and so should the LP (Leicstershire Police)

3)If DP was involved in hiding Madeleine after an accident it could well centre around him helping her with the children at bathtime. The 6.30 - 8.30pm time that evening is crucial. That is what the reconstruction would have sorted out and I believe it is why they did not return.

One thing bothers me..., she described the man as having a scar on the left side of his face, above and under the left eye. Does david Payne have such a scar? From the pictures I've seen it seems like he does not...but Murat has some scars...is there any way of knowing if she was aware of Mr. Murat, did she know him or met him at any time? Was she shown a photo of Mr. Murat when she made the photo identification for the PJ?Could it be Murat that she saw in the apartment? It has never been established if the McCanns and Murat did know eachother prior to that holiday, remember Gerry's "no comment"...or else...has Payne had plastic surgery at some point?...

When Gerry said he would not comment on the question "Did you know Robert Murat?", he answered this on purpose, to suggest Murat could be involved.Perhaps this journalist question was suggested by Clarence, to manipulate the public opinion.And Gerry was instructed how to answer it and it was broadcasted.Don't forget politicians are used to this kind of questions to help them to achieve things.And Mitchell was sent by the British government.It was very much necessary to manipulate the UK and Portugal.Something terrible is behind this story.At least one of Tapas 9 knows a lot about important people and those people are blackmailed.Photos, videos, etc, who knows?

Speaking about the scar, anonymous,if it was Murat, people would have known it, would have seen him together with the McCanns, the journalist would not have asked "did you know robert murat?"I don't remember a scar on Murat's face, neither on Payne'sWe need better photos.

Just to remind our Portugese friends that we here in the UK did not vote Gordan Brown in. He has not been elected as Prime Minister by the British people and he did not have the courage nor conviction to call a general election when he took over when Tony Blair resigned.

Another interesting fact about him is that many find it strange that he did not marry until he was 49 years and 5 months of age. It does seem a long time to wait when you don't look like George Clooney and you are a politician.

West Yorkshire Police, having been passively seeking Mr Hewlett for thirty-four years, were recently galvanised into “actively seeking” him by some cosy arrangement with the McCann Police.

Under pretext of this 1975 investigation, Mr Hewlett’s DNA is now available to be compared with the mysteriously overlooked DNA from the apartment which has reappeared, no doubt in the same British laboratory which took months to do an imperfect analysis on the cadaverine material submitted by the Policia Judiciaria.

(If Herr Peller of Aachen believes, as he has stated, that Mr Hewlett’s DNA was obtained to further this unrelated 1975 inquiry, then I have a used, hydrogen flotation Hindenberg airship to sell him).

That the British laboratory will then find a perfect match between the overlooked DNA and Mr Hewlett’s DNA, within hours, goes without saying.

“But wait!”, I hear you cry, “what if this new DNA is not a match to Mr Hewlett’s?” Have you been paying attention these past two years? We are none of us perfect, but some of us are pure evil.

Mr Hewlett, his mind concentrated most wonderfully by his illness, and the plight of his six fatherless children and their mother when he is no longer there to support them, will need little encouragement to conclude a six-figure death-bed confession with the McCann Police upon their next visit to Aachen.

The Fund, armed with Mr Hewlett’s confession, and the continued, by then evidently perverse refusal of the Portuguese authorities to reopen the case, will be able to move their defamation action against Mr Amaral to a successful conclusion, to their satisfaction and immense profit.

One ‘small’ matter remains, to be tidied up. Where did Mr Hewlett take Madeleine McCann, after he abducted her from the apartment? Did he introduce her to his six children as a new member of the family, and did she, perhaps, like one of these other children, later fall off the back of a lorry in Germany?

To lose one child in this way is unfortunate, but to lose two is carelessness, if I may misquote Oscar Wilde for a second time.

A perfect DNA match is on its way. Since this man (whose location was always known, by the way...) appeared on British media, I have no doubts at all about the deal that is under way. The body? No problem. With all that sea in the Algarve, easy to get rid and after "confessing", who would really question the fact that lots of bodies never appear?The only problem is: this man stated that he was in Ilha de Tavira selling stuff on the market. I strongly believe that the PJ checked this carefully...We may have a situation where a confirmed alibi will clash with "the totally reliable results of that magical British laboratory" which as we know has been absolutely crucial regarding the previous DNA samples. How naive the PJ and Gonçalo Amaral have been. How high will be the price now to be paid?I feel sick.

The witness statements are vital nina. Many in the UK have no idea of this sort of information. It is not an opinion it is a fact of the case.

Here in the UK the mainstream media have dressed opinions up as facts and have not balanced the info on this case. Furthermore, they have distorted the context of words and allowed the couple's story to be seen as an 'official' version.

So Nina you are entitled to an opinion but remember publishes factual info from this case allows people to come to their own conclusions. You have come to yours but some of us here believe ALL people have a right to question and in order to question we require factual info and evidence such as the dogs etc to come to our conclusion. For what it is worth I believe this couple are in it 'up to their elbows.' That is based on facts, inferences and deducement.

And you came to the conclusion that I am an idiot and have no life from reading just one sentence - impressive.

Hi Keyser sose,

Thank you for correcting my spelling - it has never been one of my strong points - much obliged.

Hi bath theory,

I do agree with some of what you are saying - I suppose that I forget at times that not everyone is as involved in the Madeleine McCann case as we are.

For me, the statements are old news, as I have read them when they were first published on "McCannFiles".

I disagree with you though, in regard to the general British public having access to this information via Joana Morias's site. If any British person would like to educate themselves on the case, I doubt very much that they would use this link to do so - I think that they would be more likely to google McCANN and it would take a while before they would arrive here - by then they would have read this info elsewhere.

I do not share your opinion on the case, but I do respect your right to have an opinion - thank you for your civilised reply.